It seems that some of the most perceptive
brains in society have given up on an effective response to climate change.
Stephen Hawking infers that mankind should colonise distant planets. James
Lovelock thinks the remnants of humanity will seek refuge on the tropical
shores of the Arctic. Scientific data now strongly suggests that physical and
biological changes in the planet are increasingly greater than those defined by
the modelling in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
report. Despite the steadily rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
even countries expressing commitment are having little impact compared to the
huge task in hand. Democratic governments continue to approve projects that
will make reductions difficult if not impossible.

In an openDemocracy
article, Andrew Dobson contrasts this environmental inactivity with the speedy
response to a recent international financial emergency (see "A climate of crisis: towards the
eco-state", 19 September
2007). If governments can recognise a cyclical financial emergency and in an
instant move heaven and earth (and billions of dollars, pounds sterling and
euros) to contain it, why can they not do the same in response to a global environmental
emergency? His answers embrace institutional, ideological, and interest-laden
factors together with the issue of who controls the public argument.

It can be argued that all these factors have a
common denominator: the fundamental flaws in liberal democracy. The market
economy, now the linchpin of western culture, is fused with liberal democracy,
such that each is dependent upon the other for survival. Together they have
developed a liberty for the individual that has environmentally destructive
consequences. The liberty to negate these consequences is constrained.

This article discusses some of the
psychological aspects of this situation and introduces the idea of
authoritarian action led by experts to address the ecological emergency.

In psychological terms, a financial emergency
immediately threatens self and the understood and valued way of life. This
carries more danger to self than the future and ill-understood threat of
ecological crisis. Human psychological mechanisms profoundly influence the
primacy of self-preservation and the need to procreate that determines our
quest for goods, status, and power. Humanity's inability to think long term is
related to the brain's evolutionary need to adapt to the conditions of a local
environment (see EO Wilson, The Future of Life[Little, Brown, 2002]).
Our ancestors had to think short term with an emotional commitment to the
limited space around them and to a limited band of kinsmen. This is the
Darwinian priority of short-term gain that bestowed longevity and more
offspring upon a cooperative group of relatives and friends. As a result, we
ignore any distant possibility not yet requiring examination.

If we imprint these responses upon the cult of
liberal democracy as it operates today, it is possible to explain the illogical
happenings that have brought us to current governmental responses - or indeed non-responses.
An illustration close to home is the responses of the John Howard government in
Australia, now facing the challenge of an election campaign - though similar responses are documented in
the United States and to a lesser degree in Britain. Two recent detailed
studies are used to document the permissive infiltration of government
processes by the fossil-fuel industries (see Clive Hamilton, Scorcher:
The Dirty Politics of Climate Change[Black Inc. Agenda, 2007] and Guy Pearse, High & Dry: John
Howard, climate change and the selling of Australia's
future
[Penguin, 2007]).

The
behavioural block

The mechanisms used by industry to reinforce
its interests are intensive lobbying, financial support for think-tanks and
government decision-making bodies, interchange of staff between industry and government
bureaucracy and the writing of cabinet papers. In its eleven years of power,
the Howard government has been united with industry in believing that the threat to Australia was not from climate change but
from possible actions to alleviate it that might harm industry, exports and the
rule of government.

During this period, a closely woven network of
individuals with the intent of denying climate change and delaying any government responses to it
has been in continuous operation. The network involved many government politicians,
some members of cabinet, and conservative think-tanks linked financially and ideologically to their
counterparts in the US. Clearly, it is doubtful if this could have happened if
the government was not ideologically receptive. Government was fervent in
denial of climate change, scientists were suppressed, research was terminated
and disdain was expressed for expert opinion. The total denial of access to
those who could explain the problem contrasted with an open-door policy for
fossil-fuel lobbyists.

The functions of the Australian Bureau of
Agricultural and Resource Economics (Abare), a government resource, merit
particular discussion. This organisation prepares and researches figures for
government and industry yet it is supported financially by polluting
industries. It prepared the model that underpinned the Howard government's
greenhouse study and the polluters oversaw this process. Abare produced
reports that stressed the dangers of cutting emissions.

On 16 August 2006, John Howard told parliament: "According to Abare, a 50% cut in Australian
emissions by 2050 would lead to a 10% fall in GDP, a 20% fall in real wages, a
carbon price equivalent to a doubling of petrol prices, and a staggering 600%
rise in electricity and gas prices. They are the calculations of the Bureau of
Agricultural and Resource Economics" (see Australia, House of Representatives,
"Question without notice", Hansard, 16 August 2006).The report was embellished
by John Howard. To give the impression that deep cuts in emissions would mean
by 2050 an economy 10% smaller than today and with 20% lower wages, Howard's
numbers excluded the words, "compared with business as usual". Despite the fact
that the report was prepared to support him, he felt the need to embellish it.

These actions can be
analysed in the context of conservational psychology and behavioural change
(see O Hernảndez & MC
Monroe, "Thinking About Behavior", in BA Day & MC Monroe, eds., Environmental
Education and Communication for a
Sustainable World: A Handbook for International Practitioners (Academy for Educational Development, 2000).
Behaviour change is seen as a gradual process involving several stages. In the
pre-contemplation stage the person or group does not know or does not consider
adopting ecologically sustainable behavior, such as the acceptance and response
to climate change. The contemplation stage sees the person thinking about these
issues and considering adopting such behaviours. The person may then progress
to preparation for action and then to the action stage.

In Australia, the Howard government has spent
eleven years in the pre-contemplative phase, with its kinsmen industries in
self-preservation mode and with an unsullied market ideology. In 2007 Howard
still showed little acceptance of the effects of climate change. When asked
what life would be like in Australia if temperatures around the world rose by
4-6 degrees Celsius, he said. "Well, it would be less comfortable for some than
it is now" (see "Howard 'no idea' about climate
change", The Australian, 6 February 2007). Public
opinion has now forced him reluctantly into contemplation and into some action
but he has employed actions that still fit within his ideological
concerns. Proposals involve
"aspirational" targets and clean coal that do not threaten the market ideology.
This behavioural change cannot progress further because there is conflict of
interest between the understanding of the science and the commitment to an
unfettered market that supports political power and material existence.

The
systemic flaw

The John
Howard government has
acted with integrity according to its own value-system. That value-system
includes the righteousness of access and policy-making to those who support
conservative government and free markets, and the exclusion of those experts
who might endanger the system. The corruption of democracy is justified by the
cause. Furthermore, the ideological kraal
has become secure from contaminating thought by the politicisation of the
public service which feeds government with what it wants to hear and by the
interposition of politically appointed staffers.

This conflict between system and appropriate
action is expressed in two statements by Tony Blair:

* "Making the shift to a sustainable lifestyle
is one of the most important challenges for the 21st century. The reality of
climate change brings home to us the consequence of not facing up to these
challenges" (quoted in Tim Jackson, ed., The
Earthscan Reader on Sustainable Consumption, Earthscan, 2006)

* "If
we were to put forward a solution to climate change, something that would
involve drastic cuts in economic growth or standards of living, it would not
matter how justified it was, it would simply not be agreed to"

The conflict - the fusion of democracy and
market - cannot survive without economic growth, and neither can the politician
(see David Shearman, "Kyoto: One Tiny Step for Humanity", Online Opinion, 4 March 2005). George W
Bush after seven years of denial and sabotage of climate science has
reluctantly moved forward from the pre-contemplative stage but is constrained by the same paradigm: "We must lead the world
to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does
not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater
prosperity for their people."

The big leap forward in behavioural change has
to be an acceptance that economic growth in its present form threatens our
survival. It is not a simple matter of changing to renewables which will bring
an explosion in employment and continuing growth. Climate change is but one of
a network of factors destroying the ecological services which support the world's
burgeoning population. It is questionable whether the leaders elected through
liberal democracy have the ability to understand these complex issues, and
indeed the commitment to act upon them.

Plato recognised the problems that would
befall democracy. The needs of the populace would not be resisted by those who
sought power; power is best exerted by those (experts) who did not seek power.

Clearly expertise is needed in this complex
world issue, but how do we get there in the face of "mediocracy"?. The first
step is to float the issue; and indeed we find that some intellectuals are
thinking this way, though cautiously - so as to avoid being labelled as
revolutionary.

Václav Havel, former president of the Czech Republic,
says: "I don't agree with those whose reaction is to warn against restricting
civil freedoms. Were the forecasts of certain climatologists to come true, our
freedoms would be tantamount to those of someone hanging from a 20th-storey
parapet" (see "Our Moral Footprint", New York Times, 27 September 2007).

The case for an authoritarianism of experts
has been explored with the philosophical conclusion that continuing absolute
liberty cannot be preferable to life (see David Shearman & Joseph Wayne
Smith, The Climate Change Challenge
and the Failure of Democracy, Praeger, 2007). It may well be non-western
states (including China) will find ways to deliver while the west continues
to display its extreme liberty with ineffectual debate and a surrender to
powerful interests in its grinding democratic institutions.

Who are 'we' in a moving world?

Our partnership with The Open University brings together academics and artists to ask who – in a time when the lines marking out citizens, borders and nations are being drawn more starkly – 'we' are, and who gets to decide? Read more...

World Forum for Democracy 2017

This year, the theme is ‘populism’. Is the problem fake news or fake democracy? What media, what political parties, what politicians do we need to re-connect with citizens and make informed choices in 21st century democracy?

Civil Society Futures is a national conversation about how English civil society can flourish in a fast changing world.Come and add your voice»

Full coverage of the non-hierarchical conference held in Barcelona on 18-22 June 2017.